[Pages H8938-H8940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

QUESTIONS FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCotter). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today in my e-mail I got five separate
copies of an article that was put in the Atlanta Journal Constitution
by a man named Max Cleland. Max Cleland is a Vietnam vet who lost his
legs and one arm. He is a triple amputee, was a United States Senator,
and in the last campaign they attacked him for being unpatriotic. Max
is a hero in my book. The fact that he would raise questions about what
the President of the United States is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan did
not make him unpatriotic.
We are going to have a bill out here in a few days for $87 billion,
and the same White House is going to attack all of us if we raise any
questions. Max's article starts with an erie kind of quote: ``The
public has been led into a trap from which it will be hard to escape
with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by steady
withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated,
insincere, incomplete.'' These ``things have been far worse than we
have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the
public knows. We are today not far from a disaster.'' That is a quote
from a guy named T.E. Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia, the Sunday Times of
London, August 22, 1920.
The British know what they are into and they know where they have
been; and if we take that quote and then ask ourselves what have we
been told, we

[[Page H8939]]

have been told that the mission has been accomplished. The President
went out and said it is all over. There have been 304 people killed in
Iraq, 167 of them, more than half, since the mission was accomplished.
It was this President on October 14, 2002, who said, ``This is a man,''
meaning Saddam, ``that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This
is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward
army.'' Mr. Rumsfeld followed him right up and said, ``Yes, there is a
linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq.'' And Condoleezza Rice, not to be
outdone, said, ``There have been contacts between senior Iraqi
officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long
time.''
And then their story started to unravel. On September 16 of this
year, almost 11 months later, the President comes out and says, ``I
have not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could
say that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks.''
Condoleezza Rice jumped up again: ``And we never claimed that Saddam
Hussein had either . . . direction or control of 9-11. What we've said
is that this was someone who supported terrorists, helped them train.''
And Mr. Bush the next day said, ``There is no question that Saddam
Hussein had al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was
involved with the September 11 attacks.''
The American people have been fed a PR campaign of misinformation
from the very start. And while that has been going on, and I will have
entered into the Record both the speech by Max Cleland and an article
from the New York Newsday by Jimmy Breslin dated 23 September, while
this has all been going on, our people have been dying.
Some of you have been out to the Vietnam Memorial, and those panels
get carved with those names in there. One can go up to Walter Reed
Hospital up on Georgia Avenue and see people without arms and legs,
just like Senator Cleland. While we keep getting misinformation out of
the White House, Ryan Carlock, specialist, 416th Transportation
Company, died on September 10; Joe Robsky from Fort Irwin, California,
died on September 10; Henry Ybarra from Austin, Texas, died. And they
keep dying and they keep dying.
If we ask questions about this $87 billion, it does not make us
unpatriotic. It makes us care about these men and women.

[From the New York Newsday, Sept. 23, 2003]

They Lied and Many Soldiers Died

(By Jimmy Breslin)

George Bush won't mention the names below in today's
speech, nor will your gullible news and television people--
the Pekinese of the Press.
Therefore we print promptly and thus prominently the names
of American soldiers killed in Iraq and reported from Sept. 9
to Sept. 19:
Spc. Ryan G. Carlock, 25, 416th Transportation Co., 260
Quartermaster Battalion (Petroleum Support), Hunter Army
Airfield, Ga. Died in attack on truck Sept. 10. Home: Macomb,
Ill.
Staff Sgt. Joe Robsky, 31, 759 Ordnance Co., Fort Irwin,
Calif. Home is a mobile home park trailer in Elizaville, N.W.
Died in Baghdad while trying to defuse a homemade bomb on
Sept. 10. He volunteered for this duty because he didn't want
children killed by land mines.
Sgt. Henry Ybarra III, 32, D Troop, 6th Squadron, 6th
Calvary. Home: Austin, Texas. Died when truck tire exploded,
Sept. 11.
Marine Sgt. Kevin N. Morehead, 33 3rd Battalion, 5th
Special Forces Group. Home: Little Rock, Ark. Died of wounds
received when raiding enemy forces.
Sgt. 1st Class William M. Bennett, 35, 3rd Battalion, 5th
Special Forces Group. Home: Little Rock, Ark. Died of wounds
received when raiding enemy forces.
Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg, 22, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute
Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne, Fort Bragg, N.C. Home:
Canton, Mich. Died in attack on his vehicle in Baghdad on
Sept. 14.
Staff Sgt. Kevin C. Kimberly, 31, 4th Battalion, 27th Field
Artillery Regiment, North Creek, N.Y. Killed when his vehicle
was hit by rocket-propelled grenade while on patrol in
Baghdad Sept. 15.
Spc. Alyssa R. Peterson, 27, 311 Military Intelligence
Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky. Home:
Flagstaff, Ariz. Died of wounds on Sept. 15 at Tel Afar.
Spc. James C. Wright, 27 Fourth Infantry Division, Fort
Hood, Texas. Home: Delhi Township, Ohio. Died when vehicle
hit by rocket-propelled grenade during ambush near Tikrit on
Sept. 18.
George Bush told lies and they died.
First, your government lied to ensure Bush's re-election.
Who votes against a president in time of war? And even
better, you get oil with the winning election.
So Bush lied to you. Not misstatements. Lies. He and his
people threw away their honor and consciences to lie to the
people. they had sworn to protect.
The lies of Washington put young men from Seymour, Tenn.,
and Maspeth, Queens and Palos Hills, Ill., into boxes. And
that, dear reader, is quite a lie.
At the start, Bush claimed that Iraq had poison gas and was
making nuclear weapons. Soon, they will poison us all and
blow us up. His proof was documents forged by elementary-
school pupils. Still, Bush used it in his State of the Union
speech. Condoleezza Rice said it was only 23 words in a
speech. What are you so concerned about?
The 23 words were only about nuclear bombs.
Look now at the lie that George Bush carries into the
United Nations today:
We went into Iraq because they were part of the World Trade
Center attack.
That's what they told you, and Americans, who honor their
government, believed what their government told them. And so
did all those young people as they were about to put up their
lives in the desert.
On Oct. 14, 2002, Bush said, ``This is a man [Saddam] that
we know has had connections with al-Qaida. This is a man who,
in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward
army.''
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, on Sept. 26, 2002,
``Yes, there is a linkage between al-Qaida and Iraq.''
Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said on
Sept. 25, 2002, ``There have been contacts between senior
Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaida gong back for
actually quite a long time.''
They knew exactly what they were saying and what it would
do. It was using a Big Lie in an age of screens and faxes.
What did you think it was, a government telling you the
truth? Why should they do that?
At summer's end, suspicions rose. It was time to change the
lie before it became a liability. How do you do that? By
using the ultimate con: telling the truth.
Here in the world of professional lying is how you use the
truth to defuse a lie when it becomes dangerous to keep:
Suddenly, Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 16 announced, ``I've not
seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I
could say that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11
attacks.''
That same day, Condoleezza Rice jumped up and chirped,
``And we have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either .
. . direction or control of 9/11. What we've said is that
this was someone who supported terrorists, helped train
them.''
And then the next day, George Bush said, ``There's no
question that Saddam Hussein has al-Qaida ties. We have no
evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11
attacks.''
So the three now say that they never said that Hussein was
involved in the World Trade Center attack. Look up what we
said. We never said it.
Of course they did. Anybody who thinks they didn't is a
poor fool. Take a half-word out of a sentence, replace it
with a smug smile or chin motion and the meaning is there.
Saddam was in on the Trade Center with bin Laden. Of course
Bush and his people said it. Then go to the whip, go to the
truth.
Only the strong memory is an opponent, and there are few of
them. Otherwise, the only thing that can remind people and
maybe even inflame them are these dead bodies coming back
from Iraq to Heber, Calif. They arrive here in silence. We
have no idea of how many wounded are in government hospitals
with no arms or legs. You never hear Bush talking about them.
He often acts as if subjects like this have nothing to do
with him.
____

[From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 15, 2003]

Disaster in the Desert

(By former Senator Max Cleland, D-Georgia)

``The public had been led into a trap from which it will be
hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked
into it by a steady withholding of information,'' he said.
``The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete.
Things have been far worse than we have been told, our
administration more bloody and inefficient than the public
knows.'' He added: ``We are today not far from a disaster''--
T.E. Lawrence, The Sunday Times of London, August 22, 1920.
Let me see if I can get this straight.
The President of the United States decides to go to war
against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one
party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The
President decides this is a threat to the United States. In
his campaign for President he gives no indication of wanting
to go to war. In fact, he decries the over extension of
American military might and says other nations must do more.
However, unbenounced to the American public, the President's
own Pentagon advisors have already cooked up a plan to go to
war. All they are looking for is an excuse.
An element of the U.S. military is under attack. The
President, his Secretary of Defense and his advisors sell the
idea to Congress and the American people that it is time to
go to war. Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked
information is fed to Congress and the American people. The
President goes on national television to explain the case for

[[Page H8940]]

war, using as part of the rationale for the war an incident
that never happened. The Congress buys the bait hook, line
and sinker and passes a resolution giving the President the
authority to use ``all necessary means'' to prosecute the
war.
The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially
there is optimism. The President says we are winning. The
cocky, self-assured Secretary of Defense says we are winning.
As a matter of fact, the Secretary of Defense promises the
troops will be home soon.
However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in
the war is different than the political policy that sent them
there. They face increased opposition from a determined
enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, suicide
bombers, village assassinations, increasing casualties and
growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged
down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and
unable to disengage because there are no allies in the war to
turn the war over to. There is no plan B. There is no exit
strategy. Military morale declines. The President's
popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly
frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a
never-ending war.
Sound familiar? It does to me!
The President was Lyndon Johnson.
Got Ya!
The cocky, self-assured Secretary of Defense was Robert
McNamara.
Got ya again!
The Congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution.
You are catching on!
The war was the war that I, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, John
McCain and three and-a-half million other Americans of our
generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's
longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating
outcome of any war this Nation has ever fought.
Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into
the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam.
Not the President.
Not the Vice-President.
Not the Secretary of Defense.
Not the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Too bad. They could have learned some lessons.
First, they could have learned not to underestimate the
enemy. The enemy always has one option you cannot control. He
always has the option to die. This is especially true if you
are dealing with true believers and guerrillas fighting for
their version of reality--whether political or religious.
They are what Tom Friedman of the New York Times calls the
``non-deterables.'' If those non-deterables are already home
in their country, they will be able to wait you out until you
go home.
Second, if the enemy adopts a ``hit and run'' strategy
designed to inflict maximum casualties on you, you may win
every battle but the battles you fight (as Walter Lippman
once said about the Vietnam War), can't win the war.
Third, if you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive
strike but also pre-emptive war you own the aftermath. You
better plan for it. You better have an exit strategy because
you cannot stay there indefinitely unless you make it the
51st state. If you do stay an extended period of time, you
then become an occupier, not a liberator. That feeds the
enemy against you.
Fourth, if you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your
intelligence must be not just ``darn good,'' as the President
has said it must be ``bullet proof,'' as Secretary Rumsfeld
claimed the administration had against Suddan Hussein.
Anything short of that saps credibility.
Fifth, if you want to know what is really going on in the
war, ask the troops on the ground not the policy makers in
Washington. The ``ground truth'' as the soldiers call it, is
always more accurate than the truth expounded through the
mouths of those who plan the war and have a political,
personal and emotional investment in their policy. They will
bend any fact, even intelligence, to their own ends. If the
ground truth and the policy truth begin to diverge, ``Shock
and Awe'' will turn into what one officer in Iraq has
described as, ``Shock and Awe S---!''
Sixth, in a democracy instead of truth being the first
casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is
the only way the Congress and the American people can cope
with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support
for the war and support for the troops goes down hill.
Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media
becomes more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous
and the Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations.
Instead of learning the lessons of Vietnam, where all of
the above happened, the President, the Vice-President, the
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert. They
attacked a country that had not attacked us. They did so on
intelligence that was faulty, misrepresented and highly
questionable. A key piece of that intelligence was an out-
right lie which the White House put into the President's
State of the Union speech. These officials have over-extended
the American military, including the Guard and the Reserve
and expanded the United States Army to the breaking point. A
quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war
theater, most bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and
casualties continue to increase. In addition to the human
cost, the funding of the war costs a billion dollars a week
adding to the additional burden of an already depressed
economy. The President has declared ``major combat over'' and
sent a message to every terrorist, ``Bring them on.'' As a
result, he has lost more people in his war than his father
did in his and there is no end in sight. Military commanders
are left with extended tours of duty for servicemen and
women, told long ago they were going home, and keeping
American forces on the ground where they have become sitting
ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist group in the
Middle East.
Welcome to Vietnam Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when
you had the chance.

____________________